Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_boost_trigger_state() optimization

[zhenglifeng (A)]

On 2025/12/2 12:58, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-12-25, 09:32, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
>> On 2025/12/1 11:42, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 28-11-25, 17:13, Lifeng Zheng wrote:
>>>> Simplify the error handling branch code in cpufreq_boost_trigger_state().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 11 +++--------
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> index a4399e5490da..a725747572c9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> @@ -2824,18 +2824,13 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
>>>>  
>>>>  		ret = policy_set_boost(policy, state);
>>>>  		if (ret)
>>>> -			goto err_reset_state;
>>>> +			break;
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>> -	if (ret)
>>>> -		goto err_reset_state;
>>>> -
>>>>  	cpus_read_unlock();
>>>>  
>>>> -	return 0;
>>>> -
>>>> -err_reset_state:
>>>> -	cpus_read_unlock();
>>>> +	if (!ret)
>>>
>>> Maybe we can make this `if (likely(!ret))`
>>
>> For the platforms which are not boost supported, this will never be
>> matched. Is `likely` OK in this situation?
> 
> Ideally they won't have a `boost` file in sysfs, and if they have it, we don't
> really need to optimize the failure case.

I see. Then I think the `if (ret)` in the loop should be
`if (unlikely(ret))` too.